AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (11) TMI 299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lf. The decisions of the Collector (Appeals) are contained in the combined order No. B. 621/622/CAL/82, dated 20-8-1982, passed on two appeals of the present appellants on the same question, namely Central Excise Tariff classification of the conveyor belting manufactured by them. The Collector (Appeals) had held that the goods were classifiable under Item 68 and not under Item 22 of the Central Excise Tariff, and had accordingly allowed the two appeals. Against these orders of the Collector (Appeals), the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta had filed two appeals to the Tribunal. These are being dealt with by us in a separate order. 3. The Tribunal itself had occasion to pass two earlier orders which have a bearing on this case. The first was the Order No. 286-D/1983 in the case of M/s International Conveyors Ltd., Aurangabad. In that case the Bench, by a majority, held that the conveyor belting which was the subject matter of that appeal was classifiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and not under Item 19 as "Cotton Fabrics" as held by the lower authorities. One learned Member of that Bench, however, had recorded his dissent from the majority judgment, and he e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive in the hearing before us that there was no difference between the goods which are the subject matter of present appeals and those which are the subject matter of the two appeals filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. Accordingly, the above descriptions can be taken as applicable to the goods under consideration. 5. Appearing before us for the appellants, namely M/s Multiple Fabric Co. Ltd., Shri R.N. Banerjee, their learned Counsel, placed heavy reliance on the previous orders of the Tribunal to which reference has been made in paras 3 and 4 above. He made the following main points :- (1) The Department had gone purely by the report of the Chemical Examiner based on the composition of the goods, and not by the trade terminology; (2) Even according to composition, PVC was predominant in the goods, comprising 56.7%. The goods could not therefore be treated as man-made fabrics falling under Item 22; (3) It was important to consider how the goods were known to the trade. "Fire Resistant Conveyor Belting was recognised as a particular commodity covered by the Indian Standard Specification and was never known in the trade as Art Silk Fabric"; (4)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally applicable for the purpose of ruling out Item 22 in the case before us. He therefore submitted that we should hold that the goods under consideration were correctly classifiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and consequently allow the appeal. 8. For the Department, Shri Tayal, the learned SDR, relied heavily on the reasoning adopted in the minority judgment in the case of M/s International Conveyers Ltd. So far as the process of manufacture was concerned, he referred to what had been stated in this regard in the order of the Collector. The appellants themselves had stated that the application of PVC compound was done simultaneously with the weaving of the fabric. This would show that the goods under consideration were the result of a process of weaving and should therefore be considered as a fabric. (Against this it was submitted by the appellants that the description of the process of manufacture as set out in the Collector's order was incomplete. They read out from their memorandum of appeal to the Collector (Appeals) in the parallel cases, to show that the "carcass" made of yarn dipped, soaked and saturated with liquid PVC mix or solution is thereafter su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fibre was viscose filament yarn. Shri Banerjee did not explain the reason for this discrepancy. Although it has not been satisfactorily explained, we do not find that it is material to a decision on the case which has to be based on the Chemical Examiner's report. 11. Shri Tayal also referred to a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Saifuddin Ibrahim v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, reported in Sales Tax Cases Volume 38 Page 463 of 1976. He explained that in the relevant Sales Tax legislation the definition of cotton fabrics under Item 19 of the Central Excise Tariff had been made applicable. The question having been raised whether rubberized cotton fabrics should be held as covered by the expression "cotton fabrics", it had been held in that case that rubberised cotton fabrics were covered by the definition of `cotton fabrics'. Shri Tayal fairly mentioned that the case was under appeal. Whatever the exact position might be, we do not think the decision on rubberised cotton fabrics would help in considering the classification of conveyor belting, having regard to the widely different nature of the two articles. Whereas the rubberised cotton fabrics were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....:- "Impregnated Fabrics. - Fabrics whose interstices in the yarn have been filed with chemical compound so as to cover the entire surface. Commonly used for leather bags, garments, insulation tapes, etc. Industrial Fabrics. - Fabrics made from man-made or natural yarn which are commonly used on machines such as belting duck, filter cloth, sizing flannel, etc." Shri Tayal submitted that conveyor belting would fall within the ambit of "impregnated fabrics" as defined in the above Indian Standard Specification. 15. Finally, Shri Tayal stated that he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Others (1980 E.L.T. 383 S.C.). This case was also referred to by the learned Member who recorded the dissenting judgment. The goods under consideration in that case were tyre cord fabric. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the tyre cord fabric fell under Item 22 of the Central Excise Tariff as "Rayon or Artificial Silk Fabric", and the Supreme Court held that it did. The learned Member had expressed the view that the same reasoning which prevailed with the Supreme Court in regard to tyre c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... might have gone into the manufacture of the final product, namely conveyor belting. 19. The most important question which has to be considered is whether the goods can at all be termed as "man-made fabrics". The description in Item 22 covering this item is quite detailed, but the important point in this context is that it begins as follows :- "Man-made fabrics" means all varieties of fabrics manufactured either wholly or party from man-made fibres or yarn ..........". Sub-item (3) of this item, which is the one specifically under consideration, reads as follows :- "Fabrics impregnated, coated or laminated with preparations of cellulose derivatives or of other artificial plastic materials". Thus both the main description in the relevant Tariff Item 22 and the description in sub-item (3) thereof speak of "man-made fabrics" or "fabrics". Therefore, unless the goods in question can be described as "fabrics", they cannot be considered as coming within the scope of this item. In the majority decision in the case of International Conveyors, reference has been made to the judicial decisions cited before our predecessor Bench (and repeated before this Bench) and it has been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... usually capable of being draped or wound around the person or spread out or hung, and ordinarily used for clothing, hangings or curtain material, tablecloths, and so on. No doubt the meaning can be extended to similar material which is used for different purposes such as the tyre cord fabric which is used in industry for the manufacture of tyres. Even then the goods should still have the generally accepted characteristics of a fabric, as referred to above. It is noteworthy that in both the judgments which were relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative, the goods were actually known as "fabric". In the case of Saifuddin Ibrahim the goods were "rubberised cotton fabrics". In the Delhi Cloth and General Mills case the goods were "tyre cord fabric". The Supreme Court in the Delhi Cloth and General Mills case had no doubt held that tyre cord fabric, should be regarded as a textile fabric. But that judgment itself shows that the goods had the characteristics of a fabric as ordinarily understood. As mentioned in the Supreme Court judgment "it is woven fabric in which the intermediate process of weaving the weft thread across the warp cord is an integral stage of manufacture"....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under consideration as "fabrics" when the general and usual understanding whether of trade and industry or of the common man is not in accordance with such use. It has been argued by the appellants that the Indian Standard Institution has published a Standard (No. IS-2364-1979), dealing with conveyor beltings, and that this shows that they are recognised as a specific commodity in trade. We consider that there is substance in this argument. For the respondent, reliance has been placed on the definitions of "impregnated fabrics" and "industrial fabrics" contained in this Standard. Industrial fabrics as defined therein plainly do not cover the belting in question, since this term in the ISI apparently refers to fabrics which have not yet been coated, impregnated etc. The definition of impregnated fabrics mentions fabrics whose interstices in the yarn have been filled with chemical compound so as to cover the entire surface. It is also stated that these are commonly used for leather bags, garments, insultation tapes etc. The examples given are all of uses where the fabric retains the characteristics of cloth, namely of being flexible and relatively thin. Conveyor belting obviously ca....